Mrbatts anti likintaings in 1j3arliament.

THE CORN-LAW DiscussIoN.

Mr. HARDY took up the adjourned debate upon Mr. Villiers's reso- lution, on Monday. He spent a good deal of time in censuring the proceedings of u the new Parliament at the Crown and Anchor," the Anti-Corn-law Conference. As a manufacturer, he disclaimed all sympathy with the promoters of agitation : there were persons enough to be found with the maxims of Cato on their lips and the spirit of Catiline in their hearts, but Members ought not to be in- timidated by their threats. Let Sir Robert Peel persevere in the policy which he had stated so fairly, and he would ultimately win the love and respect to which he was entitled. Let them burn him in effigy, if it !sleazed them: all knew the value of the nor populi, which may burst forth in an execration today but become an hosannah tomorrow.

Colonel Fox declared himself for a gradual removal of all protection ; and therefore he could neither oppose Mr. Villiers's motion nor vote for it Captain Vtra.rEns LAYARD subsequently delivered himself nearly to the same effect.

Mr. HAMILTON LINDSAY asked, whether such a thing as " class-legis- lation" exists ? but at the same time he charged Mr. Villiers's resolu- tion with its spirit, since it sought the injury of the agricultural late- rest. He suggested an amendment in the Government plan, by which the importation of American corn might be facilitated— He would suggest that corn should be allowed to be entered for the payment of the duty existing on the day on which it was shipped from Ame- xtea. If in the interval between its shipment and its arrival in Britain prices were to rise and duties to fall, there would still be a rise in the value of the article, which would make the speculation profitable ; and if the con- trary happened to he the case, the cargo would not of course be so profitable, but there would be still perhaps 3s. or 4s. saved in duty to the shipper.

&Ir. SMYTHE, taking the agriculturists at one-third of the population, asked if the House were prepared to sacrifice them for the sake of the remaining two-thirds ? He deprecated rash and sudden changes : in Austria, where prohibitory duties on foreign manufactures had been re- laxed, the change had been gradually effected. To those, however, who stood out for extreme protection, he would recall the years 1802, 1803, and 1804— These were years of great agricultural improvement, and the price of wheat did not then range above 61s. The year of 1823 was also a favourable one for the farmer, and then the price of corn was not above 51s. 9d. Now, taking into consideration the cheapness of labour at present, the reduction of taxation, and the improvements in agriculture and agricultural implements, he believed he was correct in saying that corn could be more cheaply raised now than it could in the years alluded to. He would also remind them bow much they owed to the manufacturer. To him much of the wealth, the prosperity, and the great- ness of the country must be attributed. These were not days to reject the blessings that flowed from such a source. Without commerce, Birmingham Would have been a mere petty town, and Liverpool a fishing-village. But four Ministers had dealt with the subject as the people had a tight to expect,—Lord North ; Mr. Canning in his unsuccessful mea- sure of 1827 ; Lord John Russell, who deserved a weed of praise for his last year's proposition ; and Sir Robert Peel, who merited special appro- bation for his proposed measure— He confessed be was glad to see the undue degree of protection, which began in 1688, and under the influence of which so much bad land was brought into cultivation, and so many fortunes improperly made, beginning to yield and totter. Ile was sent to the House to represent the interests of upwards of 16,000 consumers, and he knew with what delight even the smallest boon

. Id be received by them. It was a melancholy thing for the Prime Minister

to down to that House and announce that the distress was owing to over- p:Muction—that was, over-industry ; to over-speculation—that was, to over- enterprise ; to the talents, the skill, the industry, and genius of our own peo- ple. But a course so unnatural, so unwise, and so unjust as that which the Legislature had hitherto pursued, could not long endure. He hailed the right honourable Baronet's measure as the first instalment of a wiser and more thoughtful policy : he:looked on it as the first step to better things—as an earnest that the proportions of our monstrous tariff would be somewhat sym- metrized.

Mr. MACAULAY vaunted the importance and the intelligence of the constituency that sent him to the House—that of Edinburgh ; and their impartiality in the question, depending on no foreign trade nor maim- factures. With Mr. Villiers's motion he agreed in principle ; for he thought that Sir Robert Peel's proposition was wrong in its funda- mental principle-

" His principle is, that the cheapness of the necessaries of life is not uniformly or necessarily a benefit to the people. When you suppose that a man has but 40L a year for the support of himself, his wife, and children, it appears monstrous to argue that an outlay of 301. for corn is not a matter in which he is deeply interested. I am now only putting the primafacie case. How is it met by the Government ? Why, the right honourable gentleman declares against tke universal sense of all ages and nations, that cheapness of food is not necessarily a benefit to a people. His argument, if I rightly understood it, was simply this—there are countries where food is cheap, and the people are not so well off as the people of England ; and the countries which he particu- larly cited were Prussia and Belgium. If the right honourable gentlemen used any other argument on this head, it escaped my attention. Now, Sir, is that argument absolutely worth any thing—is it even a plausible argument ? lf, indeed, any person were so egregiously absurd as to argue that cheapness of food is the sole cause of national prosperity, and that trade and manufactures and a long course of successful events have nothing to do with it, I could un- derstand the exposure of the fallacy which pointed out other countries where the necessaries of life were extremely cheap but the condition of the people not proportionably benefited. But all we have argued is, that cheapness of food is a blessing to a nation, exactly. in the same sense as health is a blessing to an individuaL Of course, a man in excellent bodily health may, from family afflictions and pecuniary difficulties, be on the whole worse off than the invalid; but that does not shake the truth of the principle that health is good for man—that the healthy man would not be better off than the valetudinarian, if his circumstances were flourishing—or that the misery of the man in health would not be aggravated by having the additional affliction of ill health. The right honourable Baronet's argument goes to prove that there is no such thing as a blessing vouchsafed by Providence to man. Fertility of soil even cannot, with his viets-s, be considered a blessing to a country. Suppose hebad an opportunity of making the mountains and moors of Scotland as fertile as the richest part of the vale of Taunton, be would say such a power ought not to be exercised. If you are desirous, be would argue, of your land acquiring fertility, look to India: there there are three harvests in the year, and food costs little or no- thing : does the Bengal labourer enjoy half the luxuries, half the comforts, half the necessaries of the labourer of England ? Certainly not. But you can- not stop here; you must show that by making food as cheap in Scotland as in Bengal, the people would be subjected to continual cearth ; or that, if you were to transfer the skill and industry which supply the comforts of the Scotch to Bengal, the misery of the people of the latter country would be the conse- quence. The right honourable Baronet's argument consists in leaving entirely out of the question the important considerations of good government, security of property, internal order, the immense mass of our machinery, the existence of civil and religious liberty, our insular situation, our great mines of iron in the vicinity of our coal-mines and, disregarding all these ingredients in a nation's prosperity, he sets up his declaration against the general sense of man- kind in all ages and in all nations. Take one single point of difference—I shall not go through the others—between England and Prussia and Belgium. Re- flect upon what we owe to our insular position and our maritime power. We never saw an enemy in this country ; our fathers never saw one. It is not until we go back to '46, when some Highland clans marched to Derby and back again, that England was conscious of having a foreign enemy within her domi- nions. But take the case of such a country as Prussia : in the memory of men now living, fifty pitched battles have been fought within her territory, and in one province thirteen thousand houses have been laid in ashes. Is it to be wondered at, after such scenes, that the peasant of Prussia is not as well off as the peasant of England ? or can the infenority of his condition be converted into a proof that cheap bread is no blessing to a people ? The right honourable gentleman's induction is based on too narrow a ground. It is perfectly true that cheap corn and low wages go together in Prussia ; but it is equally true that on the banks of the Ohio food is cheaper than either in Prussia or Bel- gium, but wages are twice as high."

With respect to the question of independence of a foreign supply, it might be logically proved to be impossible-

" It is estimated that the people of thiscountry consume annually 25,000,000 quarters of corn. It is quite certain, that even on an average year you must sow such a quantity of seed as will give you something more than the average ; and in abundant years you will produce a great deal more. It follows of ne- cessity, from the very nature of the product and the change in the seasons, that you can never rely with certainty on bringing to market 25,000,000 of quarters, neither more nor less. If you want 25,000,000 of cotton stock- ings, you may order them, and machinery will supply you with neither it or nor less; but if you want to have a certain fixed quantity yielded by the land, you cannot make any an an,4,ements which will insure such an object. If corn is cheaper abroad than in England, you must export you surplus produce at the price at which the corn of the surrounding countries brings in their own markets. Therefore, whatever you produce over a fixed quantity will be sold at such a loss as must prove ruinous to the English grower, and must ulti- mately induce him to withdraw his land from such cultivation ; and experience confirms the justness of this speculation." Sir Robert Peel had admitted that we must be casually dependent on other countries ; but Mr. Macaulay preferred constant to casual dependence. for constant dependence became mutual de- pendence. Such a country as this should be dependent on the whole world. As to war interrupting our supplies, a striking instance of the fallacy of that assumption was furnished in 1810, during the height of the Continental sys- tem, when Europe was against us, directed by a chief who sought to destroy us through our trade and commerce. In that year, 1810, there were 1,600,000 quarters of corn imported, one-half of which came from France itself. But while the mutual dependence of nations was a blessing, and while the vast market of the United States was open to our commerce and our skill, the legislator stepped in and raised a barrier between a great manufacturing people and an immense and fertile district, in- habited by a rapidly-increasing and prosperous agricultural community. It was impossible to shut our eyes to the remote political consequences of such a state of things. The Chartists, for instance, interrupted Anti-Corn-law meetings: did they do so from love to the landowners? No ; they knew that the most formidable rebellions were those of the belly, and he feared that the Chartists wished to keep the Corn-law grievance as an instrument for overthrowing our existing institutions. Mr. Macaulay expressed his strong regret at the violent recriminations between the manufacturers and the landowners—the example of which, within the House, was given by the violent speech of Mr. Ferrand. It was said to be of very great importance that the question should be settled ; but Sir James Graham abjured finality, and the Government scheme seemed to be without a purpose- " One object is, to prevent certain frauds in the averages : but is it clear that frauds are committed ? No ; the right honourable Baronet is in doubt upon the point, and says that if they are committed, he is sure the representa- tions upon the subject are greatly exaggerated. The right honourable Baronet said he would like to see the price of corn in this country at between 54s. nod 58s. ; but he gave no reason for fixing upon that price more than another; all his arguments upon that point were extremely vague. To be sure, it is a tlifficult thing for a statesman to say at wbat price any article ought to sell ; but that is the reason why all wise statesmen refuse to state it ; that is the reason why all wise statesmen leave the price to be settled between the buyer and the seller. 'raking the right honourable Baronet's plan at his own valua- tion—taking it at his own statement—it is a measure which settles nothing; it is a measure which pleases nobody ; it is a measure which nobody asked for, and which nobody thanks him for; it is a measure which will not extend trade ; it is a measure which will not relieve distress." Mr. Macaulay was opposed to protective duties, and agreed with

Mr. Villiers; but he objected to an immediate and instantaneous repeal— to the word " now " in the resolution ; he could not therefore vote for the motion, though he would not vote against it.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY said, that Mr. Macaulay had been fighting a shadow of his own raising : Sir Robert Peel never denied that cheap food was a blessing to the people— If the question were proposed abstractedly, " Is cheap food a blessing to the people ? " it would admit but of one answer. But a general principle, how- ever correct, must sometimes, in application, be qualified by particular circum- stances. The important point which the right honourable gentleman omitted to notice, was the power of the population to whom the cheap food was offered to obtain a greater quantity of it and of other necessaries of life. No doubt, if the demand for labour exceeded the supply, the labourer would, if the price of food were reduced, be able to obtain a greater amount of the necessaries and comforts of life : but was that the case with the population of this country If the price of food were to be at this moment reduced by the importation of foreign corn, the labouring manufacturers would derive no benefit from would go into the pockets of other persons. This must be the case, and for the simple reason that at the present moment there was a great superabund- ance of labour.

Mr. Wortley agreed that the people of this country have advanced in intelligence; and, precisely for that reason, the Corn-laws have shrunk to their proper dimensions in their eyes, as less closely connected with their moral and social condition than other questions, such as the regu- lation of factory-labour.

Mr. MITCHELL preferred a fixed duty to a sliding scale ; but what prospect was there of carrying a fixed duty ? and that failing, was not Sir Robert Peel's measure a decided improvement on the existing sys- tem ?- He had consulted a number of his friends in the City, and he found them unanimous in opinion, that though the measure did not go so far as it ought, it was still a valuable improvement. Some three years ago he was inclined to enter into some speculations in corn ; but he found it of such a hazardous character, owing to the state of the law, that all fair speculators were driven out of the trade, and he might just as well have risked his money upon the tarn of dice. He found, however, that he could have bought the best Rostock wheat at 30s. a quarter, and at that price he could have bought 20,000 quarters. Freight, insurance, and charges of every other kind, would amount to not more than 7s. Now, supposing the average price in this country to be 56s., as stated by the right honourable Baronet, the duty would be I6s., and this added to 37s. would be equal to 53s. Rostock wheat, he believed, fully equalled British wheat ; and as the average in London was always one or two shillings above the general average of the kingdom, it would follow that when the general average was 56s. the London average would be at least 57s. or 58s.; and at that price a man might enter into a speculation with a fair prospect of a profit ; which he could not have done while the old scale was in operation, for under the old scale the duty at the average he had stated would have been 30s. 8d. Under the old scale, the duty jumped with such rapidity as the averages varied from 60s. to 73s., that every one who held wheat kept it back, nobody paying the duty till the averages got up to 72s. or 73s. The only in- stance in which the duty had ever been paid on lower averages was when some stray cargoes had arrived too late to take advantage of the low duty, and when parties were anxious to get in their corn before the duty rose to a prohibitive point. In no other case had so high a duty even as 6s. 8d. been paid on any large quantity of corn. Under the alteration as proposed by the right honour- able Baronet, people would be able to order wheat from abroad with a fair prospect of profit when the average prices in England were 56s. and 57s. It would then be a legitimate speculation, without a reference to deficient har- vests ; and therefore, in his opinion, the scale now proposed would have the effect of causing a regular importation as long as the averages did not exceed 57s. or 58s., whereas under the old scale no importation took place except at 72s. and 73s. Under these circumstances, be could not look on the proposed plan otherwise than as a bond fide reduction of duty. In oats and barley, also, the proposed scale would be a very decided improvement on the old scale. He could not, therefore, withhold his support from the Government plan.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER remarked, that Mr. Mitchell took a very dif- ferent view of the matter when he talked to the electors of Bridport about the necessity of putting down the band of monopolists who fat- tened on the spoil of the land. The chief cause which roused the people against the Corn-laws was the fact of their manifest injustice— In spite of beautiful theories about dear food being a benefit, when the party interested had the making of the law in their own hands, the people could not but regard it with distrust. There was one class who derived great advantages from it—the landlords; and however little men might be disposed to be harsh in their opinions, they would believe that, when landowners made laws to raise rents, rents must have something to do with the matter. Even if the Corn- laws did no harm, it would be wise to remove laws that produced so fearful effects on the public mind, making all legislation suspicions to the people.

Sir Robert Peel had argued that the distress was produced by " over- production— Now, what consolation was this to the people England ? Had this over- stimulus done more than give employment to the capital of the country and to the labour of the people ? It was not American capital, but English capital that had been employed; French labourers or Negroes had not been brought over to do the work, but English labourers, and not foreigners, bad been em- ployed to do it, Now what was the relief from over-production ? Why, a cessation of employment. That cessation had taken place, and thence arose the distress. When the right honourable Baronet knew the rate at which the capital and population of the country were increasing, it was fair to ask him bow that capital and population were to be employed ? To this subject Mr. Buller had called the attention of the House last year. From 1821 to 1831 two millions were added to the population. During this time, however, there was no increase, but rather a diminution of the capital employed in agriculture. Since 1831, a further increase had taken place of two millions and a half; and, as far as he could judge from the localities where the greatest increase had taken place, it was in the manufacturing and not in the agricultural districts that the great augmentation was going on. The population were, in fact, leav- ing the agricultural for the manufacturing districts. Now, whether the dis- tress was occasioned by the Corn-laws or not, it was obvious they must search for some permanent measures by which they might be able to keep the people in their average state of prosperity. If agriculture did not afford support to the growing population, and manufactures did afford them that support, they must find means to increase and extend the employments by which the people had a prospect of gaining their bread. The town bad been made too large for the country, and the country was no longer able to feed the town. What was the remedy ? Why, they must obtain food from the countries that were able to supply it at a reasonable price.

But, while deprecating legislation which interfered with:the employ- ment of capital and the subsistence of the people, there were certain charges, such as tithe commuted, the land-tax, &c., and a consideration for vested rights, which prevented him from giving his vote for an im-

mediate repeal of all duties on the importation of foreign corn. He would give a fixed duty equivalent to the fixed burdens on land.

Mr. HOPE (Maidstone) and Mr. E. R. RICE opposed the motion.

Mr. MONCHTON MILNES compassiouated Mr. Villiers, deserted by his friends ; some voting against him, and some not at all. Mr. Milnes de- precated the " lawless agitation" of the question, as an appeal not only to the passions but to the appetites of the people. In the course of a longish speech, in which he praised the moderation and practical cha- racter of Sir Robert Peel's measure, but wished that it had been more liberal, he made the following remark— To him and to other young Members of the House it was, indeed, a great and instructive lesson of political fallibility to see the poor old Corn-law abused and treated as it now was. When he saw the noble lord the Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) heaping every epithet of obloquy and abuse upon that miserable measure, which be as a member of the Cabinet bad assented to and supported in 1828—when he saw other gentlemen, who a few years ago re- garded it in its full and untouched integrity as the very ark of the constitution, now professing. their gladness to see it modified—when he saw these changes of opinion occurring on either side of the House, he rejoiced in the progress of public opinion in the right direction, and was glad to see the tendency of the measures proposed towards free trade.

Mr. WARLEY observed, that a great deal of fancy must have been exercised to clothe a subject so simple with such an enormous quantity of words. However it might be mystified within the House, without the people perfectly understood it. The landed interest and the com- mercial interest were alike national ones ; why then make the landed. interest a special one ? What was the meaning of " protection to agri- culture" ? Did they mean protection to the comfort and affluence of the landowner, or the misery and destitution of the agricultural la- bourer ?— Could the duty on corn be any protection to him in his miserable mud hovel, or to his misfortunes or destitution ? The agricultural labourer of Eng- land was in a most miserable condition—in a most deplorable condition. He had lately been in the West of England, and he found that the wages of the agricultural labourer in that part of the country were 6s. or 7s. a week—he had no more. They bad beard the state of the workmen in the factories alluded to in that House; they had heard that they were in want of employ- ment, and that they were in a state of destitution : now, what remedy had they proposed ? had they any remedy ?—None ; not a single remedy had been proposed for the alleviation of that distress and destitution under which the people of this country had for some time suffered. What had been the course of their legislation ? They had reduced or taken away protection from the manufacturers ; and the only objection he had to this was that they had com- menced at the wrong end; they ought to have begun with the food of the people. What was their Poor-law of 1834? By that law they said, " If you become poor and destitute, we will put you in gaol, on gaol-allowance." ("No, no! ") It was true. Then, what did they say to them by the Corn-laws?- " We won't give you the best opportunity to procure bread." That had been the course of their legislation ; a course so fraught with folly and danger, that now every institution in the country was in a state of insecurity. He was afraid that if Sir Robert Peel did not improve the course he had taken, he would not remain long in office— The proposals made by the Whig Chancellor of the Exchequer had for their object to increase the revenue by a reduction of taxation. The public had not forgotten that the Whigs proposed to increase the revenue by lessening the burdens of the people. They had now a powerful Administration ; and what was their first proposal ?—To continue the duty on corn, the tax on the food of the people. What would be the next proposal?—Probably an increase of taxation spread over the surface of the land and reaching the poorest workman in the country.

The sliding scale brought forward by the Government, though better than the present one, would not, on an average of years, reduce the price of wheat sixpence a quarter ; it would only produce a more regu- lar trade in corn without a reduction of the price. The Corn-laws had pressed heavily on the industry of the people ; and the relief proposed would be wholly inadequate. Corn-laws were, in fact, the infamy of our legislation ; and Mr. Wakley delivered a threat, on authority— He had been sent to that House by a large constituency, and he was speak- ing in behalf of two hundred and sixty thousand inhabitants of the Northern part of the Metropolis, who had sent him there to demand justice for them in return for their allegiance to the Crown. They told him they would employ passive resistance to the course which Government proposed to adopt ; they told him that they would no longer yield a passive obedience so long as the House of Commons continued to be constituted as it was. They demanded for the people the right of representation; they denied that the people were repre- sented under the present system, and they demanded the reform of the Reform Act. He thought they were wise in making such a demand : he hesitated not to tell them from that place, that he believed every attempt to remedy the evils complained of would be utterly useless unless they applied the axe to the tree of corruption. His belief was, that there was no remedy for the national grievances so long as the House of Commons was constituted as it was, for it did not at all represent the feelings of the mass of the community.

He feared that Sir Robert Peel, with the mightiest resources at com- mand—the proudest aristocracy supporting him, and the noblest people on earth ready to do all that the noblest of causes could require of them—was about to lose the opportunity of rescuing the land from the frightful amount of misery that beset it.

Mr. Muwvz explained the grounds on which he gave his vote for Mr. Villiers's motion, seeing that he had often expressed his opinion that he did not expect the same results from a repeal of the Corn-laws as many others did. Until the landed gentlemen could explain how they could secure protection to themselves and at the same time extend it to others—more especially to those whose only property was labour— he never could give his vote in favour of the Corn-law, nor would he. He considered that no man could legislate soundly upon the question of the Corn-law without including the money-laws. Corn and money were as inseparable from each other as the body and soul of man.

The debate was adjourned, at about midnight.

In continuing the discussion, on Tuesday, Mr. Salaam./ CRAWFORD gave his unqualified, unhesitating, and uncompromising support to Mr. Villiers's motion ; and insisted upon the justice and expediency of total and immediate repeal. He would, however, take into considera- tion the just claims of the agriculturists. With respect to the county- rate, poor-rate, and land-tax, he did not think that the land suffered burdens to which it was not justly liable; but with regard to tithes, he held a very different opinion : they are not justly to be considered as chargeable to the landed interest ; and if tithes were considered as national property, be should be willing to extinguish them altogether,

and let every man pay for his own clergyman. There might also be a hardship in lowering the averages in regard to those tenants who had taken out leases at rackrents ; and in such cases there should be a proportionate lowering of the rent. As an instance of the strong feeling which the question excited out of doors, he mentioned, that at Rochdale the news of Sir Robert Peel's proposal at once united the manufacturers and working-classes, who had been in collision ; and they unanimously agreed to a resolution denouncing the Government measure and demanding repeal of the Corn-law. It was his determi- nation to take •every means, out of the House, to promote constitu- tional agitation against that law. That " protection " does not cause prosperity, was proved by the destitution of 2,300,000 people in Ireland, and the fact that the current rate of wages was about 6d. a day.

Mr. WYKEHAM Maims touched upon the subject of rating, to show how the land bears an undue share. He began by replying to Mr. Roebuck's remark that everybody pays poor-rates-

Those rates did not fall equally on every description of persons. Where there was a landed proprietor of 5,0001. a year, the poor-rate was levied upon every fraction he possessed; every tenant paying a poor-rate, in making a bar- gain with his landlord, always deducting the amount of the rate out of the landlord's share. The landlord of 5,000!. a year would have to pay 750/. poor- rates. Let them take the landholder to the same amount, residing in a house on the largest scale: the rating on his house of 300/ a year would not be more than 451. Thus the fundholder would contribute but 451., while the landholder contributed 7501. Both paid poor-rates, but the impost pressed unequally on them. The same would be found with respect to manufacturers, mortgagees, and annuitants. Let stock in trade, property in the Funds, and manufactures be equally rated, and the land would be relieved of half the amount of the highway-rate now imposed upon it.

Mr. FREDERICK VILLIERS did not know what that peculiar standing was which the landowners thought themselves entitled to keep up at the expense of the people : Sir Edward Knatchbull seemed to think that the standing in question entitled him to exemption from the payment of turnpikes. Mr. Villiers explained that the word " now," in the resolu- tion before the House, did not mean that ample time would not be allowed to the landed interest to prove their alleged peculiar burdens. He admitted some circumstances that press heavily on the landed in- terest-as the malt-tax, and the adjustment of family settlements pre- pared under the impression that there would be no change of importance in the Corn-laws.

Sir CHARLES BURRELL supported the Government measure.

Mr. POWELL could not approve of an immediate repeal of the Corn- -laws : he wished to see the question settled by a compromise.

Mr. Jonsr MORGAN O'Colornm, supported the motion ; condemning Sir Robert Peel's speech in propounding his measure, as a merely nega- tive speech : after proving that the Corn-laws did no harm, Sir Robert came to the conclusion that it was expedient to alter theml He had heard no reason why Sir Robert proposed to diminish the protective duty on oats in comparison with wheat. He called to mind the uproar which was occasioned by the proposal to lower the duty on wool ; and afterwards when foreign butter was introduced free of duty, the farmers were in tribulation ; yet the trade flourished. Mr. Gladstone had said that if three million quarters of corn were introduced, it must displace so much native corn : and this in the face of a starving people 1 Why, did any man suppose, that, even if our population were stationary, they would not consume a much greater quantity of corn than they did at present, if they were better employed and properly fed ?

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT averred that the effect of Sir Robert Peel's proposition had been perfectly satisfactory. He had heard from a gentleman who had visited Nottingham on market-days, that the uni- versal remark was, that it conceded as much to the manufacturing in- terest as could fairly be asked, while the protection left to agriculture was as low as it could be made with safety. Mr. Villiers was polite in manner, but truculent in doctrine, for he pointed at the destruction of the band of thirty thousand landowners. This reflection gave Sir Francis occasion for a general commendation of the agriculturists, as considerate in their conduct and moderate in their wants : they were content with 4, or at the utmost 5 per cent profit ; but no trader or merchant was satisfied with such interest. Mr. Macaulay had referred to the year 1810: in that year the price of corn was 120s. ; yet there never was more employment, nor greater manufacturing and agricul- tural prosperity. He attributed the distress to the enormous competi- tion among labourers : the price of food did not matter a straw to them. The fact was, that from a part of the kingdom called Ireland there was such an inundation of poverty, that the people of this country, who would otherwise be most comfortable, were reduced to a similar state. It was his firm belief, however, that two-thirds of the people were ex- tremely well off; and that they enjoyed a comfort and abundance which were not found in other countries, as well as a degree of liberty which gave a dignity to human nature.

Lord DUNCAN exclaimed, how was " old Cato" changed, since he appeared on his knees at the bar of that House 1 And then he went on to censure the Government plan, in a vehement tone, and with a plentiful use of well-known Latin quotations.

Mr. STANTON preferred a fixed duty to a sliding scale; but he ob- jected to immediate repeal.

Mr. PATRICK MAXWELL STEWART had read a report of Sir Robert Peel's speech in the county which he represents ; and nothing could equal the surprise and consternation which it created there : people were surprised at Sir Robert's doubt that the distress was produced by the Provision-laws. His measure was an improvement on the present system, but it had the same pernicious principle. Two grounds were given for it-the peculiar burdens on land, and the expediency of being independent of a foreign supply. Now what were the peculiar burdens On the land ?-

Re admitted that the land-tax came under that denomination; that amounted to 1,200,0001. It was said that tithes were a burden upon land : he denied it. He was not a political economist, and he had avoided the mystifica- tion in which that school involved the subject ; but, applying common sense to the consideration of the question, he asked how tithes could be held to be a burden upon land? If he bought an estate subject to tithe, he paid for only nine-tenths of it ; if he inherited an estate subject to tithes, he inherited only nine-tenths of it. He was, iu fact, ajoint-proprietor of an estate to the extent of nine-tenths; and the proprietor of the tenth had just as much right to lay claim to his share as he had to lay claim to the nine-tenths. He had made an analysis of the poor-rates and county-rates levied in proportion to property in 1826 : the rates were levied upon land and houses ; and although the landed interest might pay the larger amount, still it was in proportion to property. In 1826, the rates levied upon lands and manorial profits were 4,892,000/. ; and those upon houses and mills were 2,074.000!.; making a total of 6,966,000/. Upon this item, therefore, there was a difference against the landed interest of 2,818,000!. From 1826 to 1834, the rate had increased, he presumed, in the same proportions; but owing to the wise administration of the new Poor-law, it had since gradually decreased, and was this year within a fraction of what it was in 1826, namely, 6,966,000/. He contended, then, that although the landed interest contributed largely to the poor-rates and county-rates, they did not contribute more than was justified by the additional value of the property on which the rates were charged. Land is subject to the stamp-duty on deeds, &c.; and in 1839 this amounted to 1,699,0001. (if that sum we may assume that 699,000/. were paid upon houses, bonds, and other personal contracts; leaving 1,000,000/. borne by the land. In 1839, personal property paid on the sum of 40,300,000!., legacy and probate duty to the amount of 2,017,000L : if real property were subject to the same duty, it would pay a tax of 2,500,0001. He would prove that very shortly. The rental of the kingdom was about 50,000,0001.; which, at twenty-five years' purchase, would give 1,250,000,0001.: the average succession to that property was a twenty-fifth part, or 50,000,0001.; which, subject to a duty of 5 per cent, would yield 2,500,0001.; from which the landed interest was exempt. He had shown, then, the special burdens upon the land amounted to 1,200,0001., whilst the special exemptions amounted to 2,500,0001.

With respect to the independence of foreign supply, he quoted a speech by Sir Robert Peel in 1828-

" It could not be denied," Sir Robert said, "that, in consequence of the growing population of this country, there was a necessity for looking to other countries for a supply. It was impossible not to see that in proportion to the increase of population of late years, the quantity of land employed in the pro- duction of corn was diminished; but it was appropriated to the production of more profitable articles. The increase of manufactures might diminish the growth of corn, but it did not follow that agricultural property was thereby depressed. The land was devoted to the production of milk and butter, and other articles yielding an equally profitable return. If it were proved to him that there was less corn grown in the country, he would not therefore admit that agriculture was less flourishing. It was quite clear that Great Britain did not produce sufficient corn for her own consumption." Mr. Gladstone had cited the stringent tariff of Russia as an argu- ment against the relaxation of our commercial code ; but England had first refused to take Russia's hemp, flax, corn, and tallow.

Mr. WODEHOUSE acknowledged the motion to be perfectly fair; as the Corn-laws were only defensible on the general ground that they worked for the good of the country at large. He argued to show the necessity of maintaining independence of a foreign supply ; and as to the year 1810, he said, which had been mentioned as an instance of im- portation in war-time, that importation had been specially permitted by Bonaparte. In the year 1801, on the other hand, the King of Prussia said that he would put his seal on the corn-trade ; and he told mer- chants, that while prices continued high in England he should keep up the duty.

Dr. Bowaxico reverted to the Prussian League ; and having had an op- portunity of consulting the Deputies assembled at Berlin to consider the British and Prussian tariff, he learned that they were willing, to modify their own tariff if the British Government would modify the duties on timber and certain other articles, and they would further modify it if the British Parliament would assent to any important mo- dification of the Corn-laws. Dr. Bowring went on generally to support Mr. Villiers's motion ; and he pointed to the progress of opinion in the House-

In 1829, when Mr. Hume proposed a fixed duty of 20s. per quarter, there were only twelve Members who supported that proposition. In May 1833, Mr. Whitmore's motion was negatived in a House of 411 Members by a ma- jority of 199. In March 1834, Mr. Hume again brought forward the question in a House of 467 Members, and was supported by a minority of 155. In March 1836, 195 Members supported the motion of the honourable Member for Wol- verhampton. In 1840, 177 Members voted with the same honourable Member. And on the 16th of February 1842, in a House of 575 Members, 226 honour- able Members declared their opinion that the present state of things ought not to be tolerated, and that the proposal of the right honourable Baronet could not be accepted as a solution of the question.

Reference had been made to the existence of a sliding scale in other countries : but would Sir Robert Peel adopt a scale similar to those ?- The scale of France was more complicated than that of England; for in ad- dition to the sliding-duties the country was divided into four zones, in each of which a different system of duties prevailed. What was the state of the sliding scale there ? When corn was at 44s. per quarter, the duty was 98. 6id.; and when it was above 58s. 3d., the duty was 6d. per quarter, which was the minimum duty. In Holland, when the price was lower than 23s. 9d., the duty was 14s. 3d.; when above 42s. 10d., the duty was Is. 2id. The Dutch allowed, and politically, the principle recognized by the noble Lord the Member for London-they allowed that corn was a fit subject for taxation : but where was the tax collected ? at the mill. That tax, however, was a principal cause of the late revolution which alienated Holland from Belgium. In Belgium, when the price was above 56s., the importation of corn was duty free, under 34s. 8d. the duty was 13s. 5d.; and when the price was under 27s. 9d. importation was prohibited. Let honourable Members compare these scales with the English scale.

Much had been said about the effect of machinery in reducing wages : but look at those handicrafts in which no machinery is employed-

Take shoemaking in London as an example. The shoemaker on men's work would get 13s. 6d. for his week's work of nine pair, subject to Is. 6d. draw- back for grinder'', &c.; the closer 6s. for his thirty-six pair; and the binder the same. On women's work, the shoemaker would get 12s. 10d. for his fifteen pair ; and the binder 3s. 9d. for her eighteen pair, subject to the drawback for grindery : but women are actually going about crying for work at lid. per pair, and some manufacturers are paying only 1*d. per pair. Women are making men's trousers for shops at 6d. per pair, waistcoats at 4id. each, and shirts at lid. a piece. A master shoe-manufacturer, who employed from 100 to 200 hands per week, had said that in 1812, before the Corn-law, he paid men from V. 10s. to W. per week, and women from 17s. 6d. to 28s. per week: for the same work he now pays the above 12s. 10d. and 3s. 9d. (The usual laughter at every allusion to " women.")

Mr. BErtErr believed that the working-classes were beginning to un- derstand that repeal of the Corn-laws would reduce wages ; for he asserted, from his own personal knowledge, that the wages of agricul- tural labour had always risen and fallen in a direct ratio with the rise and fall in the price of corn. Mr. MILNER GIBSON rejoiced that, with one exception, (that of Sir Edward Knatchbull,) it was admitted that the Corn-laws could only be sustained upon the ground of the general good; a very important ad- mission, because those that supported the Corn-laws were driven to justify their continuance simply by certain reasons of state and public utility, and also upon the ground that there were peculiar burdens upon the land. It was impossible to forget, however, that the supporters of the law have a pecuniary interest in the question; a circumstance which, according to the rules of law and reason, should subject their arguments to a closer scrutiny. But when they were found to differ materially in the character and nature of the defence they set up, it would make the people suspect its sincerity-

" Yon yourselves," continued Mr. Gibson, addressing himself to the Minis- terial side of the House, " if you saw a combination of workmen forcibly pre- venting other workmen from offering their labour in the common market, would hesitate before you said that that combination was for the public good, and not for the personal advantage of the men who had entered into it. Your own position differs little from this : for although the people admit that you are legislators, they do not forget that you are men; they do not forget that you have not lost the character of mankind by coming into this House, and that you are not less likely to use the power you possess to promote your own advan- tage than the combination of workmen to whom I have just adverted."

Touching on the subject of special burdens, Mr. Gibson passed to the questions of over-production and foreign supply. How was it possible, he asked, for the English manufacturer to compete with the foreigner, if they compelled him to use agricultural produce at a greater cost ?—

Honourable gentlemen were not, perhaps, aware of the great quantity of agricultural produce used in the process of manufactures. In the cotton-trade a very large quantity was consumed ; and, if the home manufacturer had to pay a higher rate for it than the foreign manufacturer, to that extent would he be unable to compete with him. That was one of the effects of the Corn-laws ; and they further disabled the English manufacturer from competing with the foreigner, not because they made wages higher, but because they limited the power of exchange, and deprived the manufacturers of the power of taking the staple article of foreign countries. The agriculturists seemed to read the statement of manufacturing exports in a jealous spirit— The question was not as to the amount, or as to the increase of their ex- ports at any particular time; but it was whether the exports were as great as they could be if not prohibited and restraiued by act of Parliament. Was it reasonable or right that trade should be extended only so far as the landed pro- prietors should permit ? Was it reasonable that the merchants and manufac- turers of this country should be considered a secondary class, subject to the pleasure or indebted to the indulgence of the landed interest? He asked them a still more important question—was it right in them to allow trade to extend just far enough to minister to their own luxuries, but not far enough to better the condition of the humble ? They allowed their luxuries to come in—their foreign wines, their silks, and every thing which could add to their splendour or increase their gratification ; yet they would not allow of the introduction of bread—of that which would better the condition of the working-man. The farmers, according to the Mark Lane Express, were apathetic on the subject of the Corn-laws. No wonder; for they knew that it was a question not of their interest but of rent. Knowing something of the agricultural districts, he called on the farmers to beware of entering into engagements in the faith that the proposed Government measure would be a permanent settlement. Mr. Escorr thought that before Mr. Villiers called on the House to repeal the present law, he should prove that it was the cause of the ex- isting distress, and that its repeal would not produce greater misery. The free trade so much lauded would reduce the price of agriculturist produce, and yet leave on the landed interest all their burdens. Was there to be a free trade in corn, when every other English article was protected by an ad valorem duty 2- Cheap bread was a good thing, no doubt ; but cheapness and dearness were relative terms. It partly depended upon the supply and the demand, but it quite as much depended upon the amount of money in circulation. This question of cheap and dear lay at the bottom of the fallacy. A rich country must be a dear country, and a poor country must be a cheap one. It ever was and ever must be so.

He instanced the case of Rome, where distress was produced by the neglect of the Italians to cultivate their own lands, and by depending on foreign supplies. The debate again adjourned, about twelve o'clock.

Mr. EWART was the first speaker on Wednesday. He ridiculed Sir James Graham's declaration that there must be further and continual changes ; whence he inferred that there was not only to be a sliding scale, but a sliding Cabinet. He urged the necessity of a speedy settle- ment of the question, with a view to the extension of our commercial relations with America ; and he exhorted Sir Robert Peel to imitate his own boldness in Catholic Emancipation • in respect to which, Sir Ro- bert, when asked whether he would make no exceptions ? said, " No ; because I know, until I concede the whole principle there will be no repose."

Mr. F. H. BERKELEY supported the motion.

Mr. THORNELY showed how a sliding scale must obstruct importa- tion from distant countries ; and he particularly showed how the trade with America suffers— Mr. M'Culloch represented America as an importing country. Now, 1837 was the only year in which America had imported largely ; she then took about 500,000 quarters. The harvest had been unfavourable, but there was also an immense issue of Bank-paper in America, raising the price of all com- modities, whether imported or of home growth. But even in that year Ame- rica exported upwards of 300,000 barrels of flour, equal to 200,000 quarters of wheat. All doubt, however, of America being an exporting country had been removed by a return published by the Board of Trade ; by which it appeared that the average export for forty-nine years bad been about 900,000 barrels per annum, besides Indian corn, rye, and salted provisions. The merchants in the American trade had memorialized the right honourable Baronet as long ago as October, showing the injury to their trade from the sliding scale ; and Messrs. Maury, of Liverpool, stated in their circular, that from the 9th Au- gust, when the duty on wheat was 22s. 8d. per quarter, to 20th September, when the duty was a shilling, the importation of wheat from the Continent of Europe into five of the principal ports of this kingdom had exceeded 600,000 quarters, whilst from the United States not one bushel of wheat or one barrel of flour had been received.

Mr. HASTIE made some calculations to show, that while the land- owners' income would only be reduced 111 per cent by repeal of the Corn-laws, they make the labourer lose 14 per cent on an income of 20/. 16s.

Mr. O'CorisrELL followed on the same side ; asking what right the landowners in the House had to settle the question between themselves and the poor, any more than the Chartists or Radicals had a right to the exclusive settlement of the question ?

Colonel CONOLLY wished the public faith to be supported, and the home market to be maintained ; and Sir Robert Peel, he thought, had made every concession which was consistent with those requirements. Of what use, asked the Colonel, would be an abatement in the price of corn to those who had nothing? Was it desired to abandon the culti- vation of this country, in order to bring the back-settlements of Ame- rica into cultivation?

Mr. HAWES supported Mr. Villiers, and would back his opinion with his vote. To a certain extent the proposed scale would be an improve- ment ; but it would still exclude all competition with foreign countries. He read a letter from one of the largest houses engaged in the corn- trade at Rostock, which expressed a confident opinion that a fixed duty would fall on the foreign corn-grower, whereas a sliding scale throws the tax on the consumer. Mr. Hawes was surprised that, as Sir Robert Peel mentioned the issues of the joint stock banks among the causes of the distress, he had brought forward no remedy for that source of evih which was obviously under control. Mr. Hawes was rejoiced at the advance which had been made in liberal opinion since the standard of a remunerating price was fixed at 90s. ; but he entered into calculations, and quoted documents at some length, to show that the intended scale would keep the price above 56s., Sir Robert's standard. If the landed interest could make out that they were unjustly taxed, he was willing to give direct compensation, or to impose a fixed duty on foreign corn. Being much interrupted with cries of " Question ! " and other signs of impatience, he observed that not one of the Ministers had answered Mr. Villiers's speech ; and the Opposition might take their silence as a ge- neral intimation that they were to go on speaking until it should be con- venient for a Minister to rise.

Mr. MARK Plumps spoke of the disappointment felt at the Govern- ment measures : many of his own friends and supporters had gone over to the opinion that the suffrage should be given to every adult—an opinion in which he did not concur. But who could wonder at the deep disappointment of a people who saw a Ministry which did propose beneficent measures turned out of office to make room for a Govern- ment which declared that it could hold out no hope of remedying ad- mitted evils? The recent petition from Manchester, for total repeal, signed by 68,000 adult males out of 240,000, attested the feeling which exists. The new proposal was no doubt an improvement on the exist- ing law ; but it would not take the trade out of the hands of speculators; and thence he could conceive the satisfaction to arise which was ex- pressed in letters by corn-dealers. Great as was the present distress, he believed that if the trade with the United States were thrown open, the first extensive importation from that region would restore activity to our drooping manufactures— In that opinion he was borne out by a recent fact. On the 28th December last, there was a ray of hope that some improvement was about to take place; which, when he traced it to its source, he found had arisen from a cargo of American flour which the merchants in Liverpool, to whom the owners con- signed it, determined to let out of bond; and in order that they might be able to meet their drafts, they set about purchasing goods for the American mar- ket. There was an immediate improvement in the trade. It was said that the sliding scale admitted a sufficiency of corn at times of scarcity— He took on himself emphatically to deny this. Even at the time when the greatest importation occurred, hundreds of thousands of the people were only half-fed; and even supposing that the sliding scale had permitted a quantity of corn to be imported equal to the deficiency, still he would say, that it had fallen far short of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked multitude. He read documents to show how the distress presses upon the labour- ing and manufacturing classes in Manchester; and in reply to a remark that ninety new mills had been erected in the Manchester Factory In. spector's district within the last two years, he said that they had been. erected before, and they had only been brought into operation within the time stated. And those mills had arisen out of the false system of credit— In regard to the system of credit given in the year 1835, he had himself de- precated it at the time, and in 1836 he told his constituents that he considered it a dangerous system ; but they did not seem apprehensive regarding it. But what were the extenuating circumstances ? He confessed that his opinion had undergone some modifications in reference to over-speculation. He had been assured by some large manufacturers, that during 1835 and 1836 almost every transaction which they had with other parties—almost every sale they made—had been paid in Bank of England notes. They could not then be accused of over-speculation : and he would like to know if any mer- chant or if any farmer would have considered it over-speculation had they been paid for their sales in notes of the Bank of England ? He knew that many persons did not see the danger ; but in dealing with this part of the case, they ought not to forget, that at that very period, when these rapid advances were taking place in this country, similar advances were occurring in the United States. If the power of production in this country appeared at that time to be carried beyond its proper limits, the apparent power of the United States was also carried beyond its legitimate bounds; and in this way might have- arisen that over-production alluded to.

Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that Mr. Philips had confirmed the re- presentation, for which Sir Robert had been called to account, that among the causes of the existing distress was the stimulus given to commercial and manufacturing enterprise by the joint-stock banks. He had only referred to those causes in order to show that the situation of the country is not to be regarded despondingly, and that precautions against such causes might prevent a recurrence of the evil. He had also Mr. Philips's sanction for what he said with respect to the concur- rence of monetary derangement in America. In his speech of the 9th, Sir Robert attributed the distress also to the disturbance of amicable relations with China as one cause ; but Mr. Hastie had differed with him, and said

that, taking indirect exports to China, by way of Singapore, into ac- count, there had been an increase : now the gross exports were 1,582,0001. in 1839, and in 1841 but 1,311,0001.: however, Sir Robert admitted that he had perhaps overrated the effect of the diminution. He adhered to his former opinion, that the prosperity of manufactures is of more importance to the agriculture of the country than any Corn- laws ; but documents furnished by eminent and enlightened men as to the progress of cotton manufactures confirmed his opinion that the effect

of the Corn-law upon those manufactures had been much exaggerated. Formerly it was said, that cheapness of food in foreign countries enabled their manufacturers to compete with ours, and that diminished exports were the consequence : now it is said, that increased exports have only led to greater loss- " That increased export may not necessarily be a test of corresponding pros- perity ; but it is at least a decisive proof that the price of food in this country has not prevented you from overpowering the competition of other countries : because, notwithstanding the price of corn in this country, you have been enabled to undersell all your foreign competitors. And how do you reconcile this declared loss to the manufacturer with the singular fact, that in one dis- trict alone there have been within the last two years ninety new mills in ope- ration? You answer, that they were built before—that they were begun before the present state of things commenced : yet, if no profit was likely to be made, if they could only be worked at a loss, surely it would have been better to let them remain unoccupied, than to have set them working in every direc- tion, with the evidence before your eyes that they could only be worked at a lose."

He now turned to the question of home and foreign consumption ; de- riving his figures from Mr. Greg's recent pamphlet. He would not take single years, for that would not be fair : in the year 1840, for ex- ample, a dear year, there was a greater consumption than in any one preceding year. lie would compare periods of four consecutive years-

" You say to me that the price of provisions prevents the consumption of the home-manufactured article; that the people must buy corn, but that having done so they have nothing left to expend in clothing ; and that that accounts for the depression of manufactures. But what is the fact ? In the year 1824, you consumed 64,000,000 pounds of cotton for home demand; in 1827, you consumed 78,000,000 pounds; you then went on advancing until 1840, when the amount consumed reached 175,000,000 pounds ; and in the last year you consumed 103,000,000 pounds. But now let us take the average of the last four years, when you say trade was most prosperous: for I recollect that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce stated, in &document which they presented to the Committee on Banks of Issue, that during the four years up to the end of 1836 commerce and manufactures were in a most prosperous state. There Was then no importation of foreign corn. Is it not, then, remarkable, that if the importation of foreign corn, or the exchange of foreign corn for your manu- factured goods, was essential for your prosperity—is it not remarkable, that during the four years which were distinguished above all others for the pros- perity of the cotton-manufacture, there was a less amount of imported corn than in any other ? From 1833 to 1836 inclusive, the whole amount of foreign wheat imported into this country did not exceed 130,000 quarters on the aver- age. I know you may say—, True, manufactures were prospering during that period when the importation of foreign corn was very slight ; but you never- theless prove the advantage to manufactures of cheap provisions by selecting a period at which the average price of wheat did not exceed 47s.' Yes, but in saying that, you abandon the argument that the importation of foreign corn in exchange for your manufactures is essential foryour prosperity. But then you say to me, True, we did not want the importation of foreign corn then, be- cause in 1835 the price of our own corn was only 39s. 2d. ; and although there might have been great agricultural distress at that period, still the cheapness of corn supplied the necessity of imported corn.' Your argument is, that ac- cording as corn is cheap so will manufactures flourish. I will take Mr. Greg's account for the years 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836, and compare those four years of cheapness with the four last years, when corn was extra- ordinarily high. There has been no such great increase of population during that period as to call for any particular notice ; but, making what allowance you please on that account, I take the four years of cheap pro- vision, and I find that on the average of those four years there were manufac- tured 279,000,000 pounds of cotton ; that during the same period there was v.; ;, _Is and J--rn 160,000,000 pounds, and that there was reserved for home consumption in those years of cheap provision 119,000,000 pounds. In the last four years, when the price of provisions was high, there was manufac- tured on the average, instead of 279,000,000 pounds, 369,000,000 pounds. There was exported, instead of 160,000,000 pounds, 227,000,000 pounds; and, coming to the important question of home consumption, I find that while in the cheap years there were reserved for home consumption 119,000,000 pounds of cotton wool, during the last four years, being the dear years, the quantity so reserved was 142,000,000 pounds. Mr. Greg says, that the internal con- sumption does not continue to bear the same proportion to the exports : but is that a fair test? Is it fair to argue by saying, ' I will show you that the exports bear a greater proportion one year to the consumption than another '? I think not. 1 think the question should be, what is the amount of progressive increase ? And I ask you whether you don't find that, notwithstanding the in- crease of population, which accounts certainly, as it ought to do, for some in- crease in the home consumption—don't you find, if you will take it upon the average of two, three, or four years, that the internal consumption of cotton- goods has greatly exceeded the increase of population ? The diminution during the last year, as compared with the previous year, does certainly fortify the argument that the increase in the price of provisions may have led to a dimi- nished consumption : but you should always bear in mind, that the consump- tion of the year before was extraordinary and unusually great, the quantity of cotton consumed by the home demand in 1840 being 175,000,000 pounds." Still, he deeply sympathized in the distress of the labourers ; and that sympathy for them was not lessened by their having burnt him in effigy. But he knew that a country circumstanced like England must be liable to partial distress, concurrent, perhaps, with great manufac- turing prosperity. He did not believe that machinery, in its permanent results, diminished the demand for human labour ; but still there might be the severest partial suffering. Thus there had been severe distress among the hand-loom weavers in 1835, one of the seasons when the general prosperity was greatest, and corn cheaper than it had been for thirty years. He was therefore without expectation of being able, by any legislation, to prevent occasional suffering in the country. No nation is exempt from such visitations. Take the case of the United States. Speaking of destitution and charitable institutions in the State of New York, Mr. Buckingham says- " The instances of death from destitution and want are much more nu- merous than I had thought possible. This indigence in a country where food can be raised so cheap, where labour is in such demand, and always paid so well, would seem unaccountable, but for the fact, that in the late mania for speculation the cultivators of the soil, instead of following up their agricul- tural pursuits, had left off farming to become speculators an stocks, buyers in railroads never begun, and canals never opened, as well as purchasers of lots of land on which towns were intended to be built ; in which extravagant schemes they spent all their time and money ; so that agriculture, the great basis of the national wealth, and the surest and steadiest security of individual prospe- rity in these fertile States was so neglected, that the country was obliged to import grain for its own consumption, instead of supplying, as it ought to do, from its own surplus, the older countries of Europe.'

He deprecated extravagant expectations from his measure. The benefits which he expected to result from it were, that agriculture would he exempt from sudden inundations of corn, and the Bank of England from sudden drains of bullion ; because the demand for fbreign corn would be more gradual, and the supply more regular. With respect to the difficulty of procuring American wheat, he mentioned actual transactions, in which an order for wheat had been sent to Ame-

rica on the 1st of August and the wheat had been landed at Liverpool on the 24th of September, while an order to Stettin had been despatched on the 25th of July and the wheat did not arrive in Liverpool till the 24th of September. He doubted whether the import from New York could not be effected in less time than the import from Dantzic. Turn- ing to another part of the subject, Sir Robert remarked on the absence of Mr. Macaulay, a gentleman who said that he represented a peculiar constituency, and stated his views as the concentrated essence of the intelligence of that constituency ; but yet he had not the manliness to vote against a proposition of which he conscientiously disapproved. Sir Robert denied, in passing, that he had ever maintained that cheap food was not an advantage. He then called upon those to support him against Mr. Villiers who thought, with Lord John Russell, that agri- culture had a claim for protection ; those that agreed with Lord Pal- merston, that there should be a fixed duty on foreign corn, but only for revenue,—a principle, Sir Robert remarked, which, to be consistent, ought to be extended equally to all corn ; so that four shillings, for in- stance, should be laid on foreign corn and four shillings on home-grown corn ; and then they would be quite on an equality. He called on those to vote with him who agreed with Irish Members in dreading any re- duction in the duty on oats, and with Mr. Charles Buller in thinking that vested interests ought to be cautiously dealt with. [Mr. CHARLES BULLER said that he was going to vote with Sir Robert.] He hoped that the House would put a decided negative on Mr. Villiers's proposi- tion ; and then proceed with as much expedition as was consistent with due deliberation to pass the bilL

Lord Joust RUSSELL objected to the demand for speedy legislation : the question was one for Parliament to deliberate upon ; they, and not the Ministers, were to decide. Was the House to pass in a hurry a measure which Ministers had taken so many months to consider? The manufacturers were bound to ponder it well ; and the agriculturists, who had given way, would expect that it should be so well digested as to be permanent when once passed. He justified Mr. Macaulay's absence from the coming division, by the example of the Lords, some of them members of the present Cabinet, who absented themselves when the Reform Bill was passed.

After a few half-joking words from Sir ROBERT PEEL on Lord John's solemn claim for the deliberation which had not been refused—and from Sir CHARLES NAPIER, doubting the practicability of bringing corn from America in six weeks, or from Alexandria in less than three months— the debate was again adjourned, at half-past one.

The concluding debate, on Thursday, was opened by Mr. ALEX- ANDER JOHNSTON, ' who argued generally against the nugatory character of " protection." He denied that manufacturers sought a repeal of the Corn-laws as a means of reducing wages— He maintained that the business of manufacturers was never so profitable as when they were obliged to give their workmen high wages; and that, if any choice was open to them, they would prefer high wages, because they were the sure attendants of high profits, whereas low wages might be taken as a sure proof that manufactures did not prosper.

Mr. Johnston entered into various minute statements with the view of showing that wheat could not be imported under a charge of 50s. per quarter. He presumed that that was a price which the Scotch farmers considered a remunerating one; and he would ask, why should not the English agriculturist be of the same opinion ? why did not the English agriculturist adopt the Scotch system of farming?

Mr. VILLIERS STUART remarked, that the object of the Corn-law was to bribe those who would not otherwise cultivate the soil, by raising the price of corn above the level of the Continent ; but the best security for the continued cultivation of the soil was the immense produce of the country at the present moment.

Mr. AGLIONBY had never yet been prepared to assent to such a mo- tion as that of Mr. Villiers ; and his justification in doing so now was the extreme distress, for which no promise of a remedy had been held out. Sir Francis Burdett had talked of the comparative comfort of the people ; but such was not their state in Mr. Aglionby's county : in Carlisle 6,000 persons received no more than ls. lid. a week each.

Mr. HENEAGE vindicated the interests of the middling and lower agriculturists against the attack made upon them. Some years ago it was proposed to apply the sponge to the claims of the landholders, who were described as the few living on taxes wrung from the many ; but it was found that their number exceeded 270,000: Mr. M`Culloch esti- mates the total number of landowners in England and Wales at 200,000, and their average yearly income at 1501.

Mr. HOBBNAN, who was deterred from voting for Mr. Viliiers's reso- lution by its phraseology, repeated, with some variation, many of the general arguments against the Corn-laws.

Mr. COWPER could not vote for total and immediate repeal.

Sir ROBERT BATESON contended that repeal of the Corn-laws could not benefit Ireland, whose people lived not upon wheat but potatoes ; while it would injure her in the export of oats. And he asked why a measure should be passed which must ruin the agricultural labourers, merely to force a system of manufactures under which he had been as- tounded, horrified, disgusted, to hear that children were worked ten hours per day—much longer than a horse would be worked? How- ever, he would not imitate the obstinate verbosity of faction, and lengthen yet further a discussion of which the House and the country were sick.

Mr. PROTHEROE was not one of those who were frightened at the word " now " in the resolution ; but he should be willing to listen to well-founded representations of evil from too sudden repeal, or to pro- posals for compensation for violation of vested rights.

Sir HOWARD Dommas had declared, at his late election for Liverpool, that he is a firm supporter of the " protective" system ; and he took his return without contest as a proof that his opinions were agreeable to his constituents. Sir Howard commented at considerable length on Mr. Villiers's remark that England is placed between two continents but debarred from taking their produce. Without regarding the tariffs of Russia, Prussia, and Denmark, he asked what concessions France had made in return for our relaxations in her favour ? That we would not take the produce of the United States was disproved by our con- sumption of cotton ; but those States would not take our manufactures in return. He quoted extracts from the messages of every President from Washington to Jackson, advocating the encouragement of menu- faoteres in the Union. Alluding to Lord Palmerston's peroration on the previous Wednesday, he marvelled that a Minister of so much ex- perience should not be awakened from his pleasing dream of mutual de- pendence among nations, by the fact that national rivalry was never more stern than at present, national antipathy never more wide awake,

the propensity to war never stronger. •

Mr. COBDEN complained that not one speaker had grappled with the question laid down by Mr. Villiers, whether it was just and honest that any tax whatever should be laid on the food of the people ? and he called upon the Committee to discuss with him the interests of the working-classes upon neutral ground. In the. debates of 1815, all agreed on one point of the subject, that the price of food regu- lated the rate of wages ; and he regretted to see that many who now took part in the discussion laboured under the same delusion. The working-classes, however, had never been deluded : the law of 1815 was passed while the House was surrounded with bayonets to keep back an enraged people ; and the excitement in the North of England continued from 1815 to 1819. And at this day there is no mistake among the working-men, although they do not call exclusively for re- peal of the Corn-laws. Indeed, the fallacy could not be maintained after the experience of the last three years ; for bread had not been so high in price for twenty years previously, while wages had suffered a greater decline than in any three years before. Then it was said that it was necessary to maintain the Corn-laws in order to prevent wages from falling to the Continental level- " I deny that labour in this country is higher paid than on the Continent. On the contrary, I am prepared to prove, from documents on the table of your own House, that the price of labour is cheaper here than in any part of the globe. (" Oh, oh !") I hear an expression of dissent from the other side; but I say to honourable gentlemen, when they measure the labour of an English- man against the labour of the foreigner, they measure a day's labour indeed with a day's labour, but they forget the relative quality of the labour. I main- tain that if quality is to be the test, the labour of England is the cheapest in the world. The Committee which sat on Machinery in the last session but one, demonstrated by their report that labour on the Continent is dearer than in England. You have proof of it. Were it not so, do you think you would find in Germany, France, or Belgium, so many English workmen? Go into any city from Calais to Vienna, containing a population of more than ten thousand inhabitants; and will you not find numbers of English artisans work- ing side by side with the natives of the place, and earning twice as much as they do, or even more ? Yet the masters who employ them declare, notwith- standing the pay is higher, that the English labour is cheaper to them than the native labour.'

Indeed, the manufacturers were too enlightened to seek benefit from deteriorating the condition of the people. If you want your people to be virtuous or happy, you must take care that they are well-fed : but yon tax their bones and muscles, put a double weight on their shoulders, and tell them to run a race with Germany and France. And on what pretence?— "Laos in a useful little book, called the Parliamentary Pocket Companion ' in which there are some nice little descriptions given of ourselves, under the head 'Cayley,' that that gentleman is described as being the advocate of ' such a course of legislation with regard to agriculture as will keep wheat at 64s. a quarter, new milk and cheese at from 52s. to 60s. per hundredweight, wool and butter at Is. per pound each, and other produce in proportion.' Now it might be very amusing to find that there were to be found some gentlemen still at large who advocated the principle of the interposition of Parliament to fix the price at which articles should be sold; but when we find a Prime Minister coming down to Parliament to avow such principles, it really becomes any thing but amusing. I ask the right honourable Baronet, is he prepared to carry out that principle in the articles of cotton and wool? 1 pause for a reply." Sir ROBERT PEEL—" I have said that it was impossible to fix the price of food by any legislative enactment." (Cheers.) Mr. COBDEN—" Then on what are we legislating ? (Counter-cheers from the Opposition.) I thank the right honourable Baronet for his avowal. Per- haps, then, he will oblige us by not trying to do so. Supposing, however, that he will make the attempt, I ask the right honourable gentleman—and again I pause for a reply—will he try to legislate so as to keep up the price of cotton, silk, and wool ? No reply. Then we have come to this conclusion, that we are not legislating for the universal people. (Opposition cheers.) We are openly avowing that we are met here to legislate for a class against the people. When I consider this, I don't marvel—although I have seen it with the deep- est regret, and, I may add, indignation—that we have been surrounded during the course of the debates of the last week by an immense body of Police. ' (" Oh, oh ! " and much laughter from the Ministerial side, mingled with cries of

Order, order! ")

And would Sir Robert extend his principle to wages-

" I ask the right honourable Baronet, whether, while he fixes his scale of prices to secure to the landowners 56s. a quarter, he has got also a sliding scale for wages? I know hot of one class of labourers in this country whose interests are well secured by the sliding scale of corn-duties, and that class is the clergy of the Established. Church, whose tithes are calculated upon the averages. But I want to know what you will do with the hard-working classes of the com- munity—the labouring artisans—if the price of bread is to be kept up by act of Parliament ? Will you give them a law to keep up the rate of their wages? " With respect to the alleged liabilities of the land, Mr. Cobden under- took, for every burden that Sir Robert Peel could point out to him, to show ten exemptions ; and at all events, ought they not to know what those burdens were, when they legislated upon the strength of them ? Let them exclude foreign corn when it was not wanted, as they pro- fessed to do; but let the people be judges of the want : by what right did they, who never knew the want of a meal in their lives, presume to know when the people wanted bread? Sir Edward Knatchbull said that the landlords were entitled to the Corn-law to enable them to maintain their station in society : that was not dealing fairly with the people; for the landlords were giving themselves an out-door relief, which they denied to the poor in the workhouses. It would be more for the interest of the country if they were to do as the nobles did in

i

Venice—inscribe their names in a golden book, and draw their money direct from the Exchequer. The Minister, however, was not legislating in the dark : he knew the condition of the people ; and if he followed out his present course, he would live to find trade worse even than it now is. On hint be the consequeaces. He had spoken, indeed, in an apologetic and deprecatory tone; but he could not plead the difficulties of his situation, for it had not been forced on him either by the people or the Queen, but he had sought it. He had told them from Tamworth that he had been for years engaged. in the reconstruction of his party ; and it was to be presumed that he knew the materials of which it was composed—of monopolists of various kinds; and therefore he could not be disappointed on that score.

Turning to those who do not like to repeal the laws " now," Mr. Cobden asked if the continuance of a wrong became its own justifica- tion? and he answered the objection in the words of a countryman- " I have heard such scruples very often expressed before; but I once heard them met at a public meeting of electors, in what appeared to me to be a very satisfactory manner. There was great difficulty on the platform among the agricultural gentlemen who were assembled there about the repeal of the Corn- laws, and they were arguing over and over again about the danger and hard- ship of an immediate repeal of them. They were at length interrupted by a sturdy labouring-man in a fustian coat, who called out, ' Whoi, own where's the trouble in taking them off ? you put them on all of a ruck!'—meaning, that they had been put on all of a sudden. And so they were."

The question had now been resolved into such narrow limits as to depend on these two points- " Are you, the landed interest, able to show that you are subjected to ex. elusive burdens? If so, then the way to relieve you is not to put taxes on the rest of the community, but to remove your burdens. Secondly, are you pre- pared to carry out even-handed justice to the people ? If not, your law will not stand; nay, your House itself, if based upon injustice, will not stand."

Mr. FERRAND, roused by attacks made on him by Mr. Clay, Mr. Ward, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Leader, and Mr. Macaulay, now retorted with further disclosures respectingothe conduct of oertailt manufacturers. He had said that Mr. Cobden worked his mills night and day ; and Mr. Brotherton answered that by saying that Mr. Cobdea never had a mill in his life- " Now, 1 instantly gave the honourable Member my authority for the Ades. ment I had made. (Cries of" No, no !") I placed my authority in the hands of the House, and said, if it demanded the name I would give it. I was met by loud cries of No,' by the gentlemen on this side of the l lease, and also a generous response from the opposite side ; but scarcely live minutes before the honourable Member fbr Salford left the House : I followed him oat of it, and said ' Now then, in 'private, I will give you the name of my aatlat- rity, the date of his letter, and the place of his abode.' I did so : I read to MSS in private what I had stated publicly in the House. lie laughingly tonal away, and said, Ah, but we call them print-works in Lancashire.' " (Lead and protracted Ministerial cheering.) Not one of the representatives of the Anti-Corn-law League bad de- nied the accuracy of his statement, which had destroyed the le Watt so that they were compelled to coalesce with the Chartists. /1.r. Fan- rand read a letter from Leeds, to confirm his assertions that signature' to Anti-Corn-law petitions were paid for, and that the distress was caused not by the Corn-laws but by the oppression of maatett: and then he described the continuance of the truck system- " But before I read to the House a statement which will matia it stead aghast, which will freeze its blood with horror, I wish particularly .10 reasiala, in the presence of the House, that I do not charge the whole of the manalber turers of England with being parties to this nefarious system : I positively &- dare that I charge only the Anti-Corn-law League manufacturers."

Mr. Ferrand then, in spite of the continued interruption Of the How, read a number of letters from parties whose names he did not mention, in which particular manufacturing-houses in pirrieuip, q.i9t7;40:!.no• pointed out as evading the law to suppress the truck system, and ee paying their workmen in goods instead of money. The mannerist which the law was evaded was thus described— On Saturday the people went into a room to receive their wages : were paid at the time in money; but, instead of retiring by the door tiirou which they entered, they had to pass into another room, in which sat a person who kept the books of the truck-shop, and to whom the workmen had to pay every farthing that they had expended during the previous week in buying goods and clothing; and if it were proved that any one of the men had pur- chased one single farthing's worth of goods from any other shop than that which belonged to his master, he was, without one word of explanation, discharged. " Now this," continued Mr. Ferraud, " is your free trade system! It is a notorious fact that the master-manufacturers clear 25 per cent by the goods they sell to their workmen, and 10 per cent by the cottages in which they are compelled to reside." He charged the Anti-Corn-law League with haying enhanced the price of corn— Were honourable gentlemen aware, that no less than 100,000 quarters of wheat were annually used by these men ? (Cries of " How l") How 1 by daubing their calicoes with flour-paste. (Much laughter.) Mr. Ferrand then read extracts of letters describing the way in which the manufacturers applied the flour-paste to their calicoes, in order to give them the appearance of strength and durability. He also read a letter from an English merchant, de- scriptive of the frauds practised by certain manufacturers in the making of cloth. According to that letter, it appeared they were in the habit of collect- ing all the old and tainted rags they could obtain, grinding them to dust, and mixing this with the wool. .this dust, made from diseased rags, was so de- tested by the working-people employed in the manufacture of the cloth, that they could find no more suitable name for it than Devil's dust, and by the name of Devil's dust it was accordingly known. (Great laughter.) Many of the manufacturers in Huddersfield had put such a large quantity of this Devil's dust into their cloth that the foreign trade had become almost ruined. In fact, they used no more wool than what was necessary to keep the Devil's dust together. These frauds rendered English manufactured goods almost worth- less in the foreign markets. [The merriment elicited by this description was increased by a little incident. While Mr. Ferrand was reading one of the ex- tracts, Colonel Sibthorp, who had been conspicuous in cheering him in the course of his speech, was observed to leave the House ; and soon afterwards he returned with a large orange, which he presented to Mr. Ferraud, amidst roars of laughter.] Mr. Baommarosi averred that he had no intention of deceiving the House when he drew the distinction between mills and print-works; and Mr. COBDEN, amid reiterated cries of " Explain !" declared that he " trembled for the dignity of the House," when it listened to such statements with complacency.

The debate was carried on, without much novelty of remark, by Mr. HINDLEY ; who opposed the Corn-law as giving an undue stimulus to machinery by enhancing the cost of human labour ; by Mr. GILL, who advocated a moderate fixed duty ; by Mr. FIELDEN, and General Jonx- soN, who supported Mr. Villiers.

Mr. VILLIERS then rose to reply. Even if the length of the discus- sion did not prevent his replying at any length, the state of the Haase since the delivery of Mr. Ferrand's speech debarred it from entering calmly and deliberately into the question— It was a speech which certainly misrepresented most grossly the objects sad motives of those who brought forward this question, and so far it concerned him ' • but it was a speech that appealed to all the prejudices of the upper classes—of the landed classes—against the trade and manufactures of this country ; and it was received with a degree of satisfaction which he had never witnessed in the House before. Be was of opinion that the striking effect of that speech gave a decided character to the question now before the House ; and he must think that the division about to take place would mark the dif- ference between the views of those who agreed with the honourable Member for Knaresborough and those who advocated opposite doctrines, rather than on the question immediately before the House. Two points of Mr. Ferrand's allegations Mr. Villiera could deny of his own knowledge—that all petitions against the Corn-laws were un- fairly obtained, (Mr. FERRAND interposed, that he did not say all,] and that the people were adverse to the repeal of those laws. Mr. Ferrand was bound to prove the frauds he had imputed to the manufacturers. His own course in bringing forward this motion, and the length to which the discussion had been extended, were justified by the admissions made on the part of Government, and by the staleness of the arguments directed against him. To those who objected to total repeal he said, that he re- spected vested interests, but if the removal of this evil was to take place at all, it must have its beginning at some point of time or other ; and a fixed duty, or even the proposed measure, if it did any good at all -by cheapening food, would in just the same proportion tend to with- draw protection and throw poor land out of cultivation. What respect had the Legislature foil- vested interests when it passed the Bank Re-

striction Act or the new Poor-law He regretted his present motion only by reason of the large majority who were likely to vote against it. The House then divided ; when the numbers were—for Mr. Villiers's resolution, 90 ; against it, 393 ; majority, 303.

The adjournment of the House took place at two o'clock on Friday morning.

A number of questions were put to Sir Robert Peel on Monday, respecting the Corn-laws and cognate measures of Government. Mr. CO DEN asked him, whether he was going to lay before the House a specification of the burdens borne by the land? Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that they were matters of controversy, and even writers on political eco- nomy differed about them : Adam Smith, for instance, and Mr. M'Cul- loch, regarded tithes as a burden peculiar to land ; other writers were of a different opinion. Mr. COBDEN wished for a statement of what, in Sir Robert's own opinion, constituted the burdens on land. Sir Ro- BERT PEEL observed, that honourable Members usually delivered their opinions in their speeches. Mr. EWART asked, whether Sir Robert would have any objection to the appointment of a Committee of inquiry as to the peculiar burdens on laud The public might then know whether it was worth while to give compensation to get rid of the tax. Sir ROBERT PEEL--" My answer is, that I have proposed a measure which will reduce the present duty on corn from 22s. to about 10s., or something in that proportion : I hope the honourable gentleman will unite in passing my bill into a law as speedily as possible." Mr. Hurt asked, whether it was intended to preserve the same ilaiivesvproportion in the rate of duty on corn and foreign flour as at present ? Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, that great inconvenience might arise from answering particular questions. Mr. MILNER wanted to know what was to become of the Corn-Inspec- tors, whose functions were to be transferred to the Excise ? Sir ROBERT PEEL would state his views fully on bringing in his bill.

Mr. P. N. STEWART wished Sir Robert to state when he intended to divulge his whole scheme ? he did not presume to ask, though he was almost tempted to do so, what were the articles of " other foreign pro- duce" alluded to in the Speech. This question was repeated by Lord JOHN RUSSELL on Tuesday. Sir ROBERT PEEL then stated more fully, that as soon as he could, he would take the Army and Navy Estimates, in a Committee of Supply ; and then, in a Committee of Way s and Means, be would state his measures of finance. In answering Mr. Stewart, he observed that even if that gentleman had been " tempted," against his better discretion, to ask for the details, Sir Robert should have felt bound to resist "the couuter-temptatLn " to give an answer.

SLAVE-TRADE TREATY.

On Monday, the Earl of ABERDEEN laid upon the table a copy of the treaty agreed to by the representatives of the Five Powers for the more effectual abolition of the Slave-trade. He regretted that he was under the necessity of informing their Lordships that the ratification of the King of the French had not been exchanged with those of the other Powers; neither was be able to inform the House of the precise time when that ratification might be expected— Their Lordships, probably, were aware of the causes which had produced this decision on the part of the French Government ; and he felt that it was his first duty to say nothing more, and to do nothing which could by any possibility increase the difficulties which existed, or throw any efficient obstacle in the way of their removal. The protocol, at the desire of the French Pleni- potentiary, had been left open for the accession of his Government. The treaty would now bind but the Four Powers by whom it was ratified. The • treaty with France, concluded in 1831 and 1833, remained in full force and vigour. The present treaty had, in fact, originated in part in the treaty of 1833, which bound England and France to propose to the other Powers to accede to the treaty into which they had entered; and it was principally with a view to obtain the perfect concurrence of the Five Great Powers that this treaty had been entered into, and not with the intention of forming new engagements or entering into new articles; for there was scarcely any devia- tion from the former treaty. The treaty of 1831 gave the mutual right of search, which was fully recognized and established by the treaty of 1833, the articles of which furnished sufficient grounds for capture in certain cases. The present treaty coincided with the former with one exception as to the exten- sion of the latitude in which the right of search is to be exercised.

Lord BROUGHAM expressed his deep regret that the ratification of the

important treaty should have been even temporarily postponed ; and vindicated the Government, as well as the people generally, from the imputation of any sinister motive in the effort they were now making to abolish for ever the African slave-trade.

Sir ROBERT PEEL made a statement similar to Lord Aberdeen's, in laying the treaty on the table of the House of Commons. Viscouut PALMERSTON hoped that the ratification of this treaty by France would not be delayed. The refusal to ratify a treaty, concluded LC an Ambassador in conformity with his instructions, was contrary to he usual practice of Governments.

SPAIN.

Mr. HINDLEY asked, on Tuesday, whether the British Government had lately received any communication from the Great Northern Powers as to the policy of recognizing the Constitutional Government of Spain ?

Sir ROBERT PEEL made a declaration in reply to the question-

" Our anxious wish is to see Spain a prosperous and perfectly independent

nation ; independent of all foreign interference. No power which she can possess for her own just defence can in the slightest degree be the object of our jealousy. It has been and is our desire certainly to give strength and stability, by our counsel and influence, to the present Government of Spain, because we see under that Government repeated indications of an advance towards civilization and prosperity ; and we certainly have exercised such influ- ence as we could command for the purpose of inducing the Governments of Continental Europe to recognize the Government of Spain. It is, of course, impossible for me to state at what period the desired recognition may take place."

MISCELLANEOUS.

POOR-LAW. In reply to Mr. THosms DUNCOMBE, on Monday, Sir ..Lums GRAHAM said, that after the corn question and the financial measures of the Government had been disposed of, it was the intention of Ministers to bring forward a measure which should not only con- tinue the Poor-law Amendment Act for a considerable period, but should contain such modifications of the existing law as the experience of the Government might lead them to consider necessary. Imme- diately after the Easter recess, it would be his duty to lay on the table the Government measure ; which, he could assure the Honourable Mem- ber, would be fall and complete.

The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition to the House of Lords, on Thursday, from the Crediton Union, impugning the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners. In January 1840, two paupers, Lock and Dart, died in the Workhouse, under circumstances, it was alleged, of gross neglect. Mr. Tanner, a lawyer of the place, demanded an inquiry; and an inquiry was instituted by the Commissioners, under the presi- dency of the Assistant-Commissioner; but it was said to be conducted in haste and secrecy. Mr. Tanner published a statement of his story in Woolmer's Exeter Gazette, and a criminal information was taken out against him. When the case came into the Court of Queen's Bench, it was stopped by his own counsel on a technical objection. A new in- quiry was afterwards ordered by the Commissioners ; at which, how- ever, Mr. Tanner, who meant to conduct the ease as prosecutor in the investigation, was summoned as a witness. The petition prayed for in- quiry by the House. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said, that the persons who had died were idiots, and their discomfort arose from their own imbeci- lity. There was no appearance that they had not been made as com- fortable as circumstances admitted. Mr. Tanner, who seemed to be actuated by a love of notoriety, rejected the opportunity of investiga- tion in a court of law, by suffering a technical objection to be raised by his own counsel. The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

EXCHEQUER Buis. In reply to Colonel SIBTHORP, in the House of Commons, on Tuesday, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the subject of the Exchequer Bill fraud was under the serious consider- ation of Government and the Treasury, and he had no doubt that it would be necessary to introduce some amendment into the law regu- lating the department. Colonel SIBTHORP moved, on Thursday, for returns specifying the days that Lord Monteagle had attended at his office as Comptroller- General of the Exchequer, and some other particulars. The CHAN- CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER only agreed to the motion in deference to the express wish of Lord Monteagle. The returns were ordered. Lord WHARNCLIFFE has postponed his motion on the subject till Thursday next ; Mr. GOULBURN, till Tuesday. GOLD COINAGE. The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER said, in reply to a Member, on Tuesday, that the attention of Government had been for some time directed to the state of the gold currency, and that they had in preparation a measure on the subject. DRAINAGE OF TOWNS. Sir JAMES GRAHAM announced, on Wednes- day, that Government intend to bring forward a measure for the more efficient drainage of towns. Local. COURTS. On Monday, Lord CorrEtnum introduced to the House of Lords three bills for the establishment of Local Courts ; ex- plaining their general nature— The first was a bill to establish courts of local jurisdiction in all the districts throughout the country, so that every town might have, at short intervals, a court of sufficient jurisdiction to decide questions of property to a certain amount, for which at present the remedy was insufficient. By a second bill, he proposed to take advantage of this jurisdiction for the purpose of the better administration of the Bankrupt and Insolvent Acts; and a third bill was in- tended to employ the same jurisdiction in executing those duties connected with the Court of Chancery now executed by special commissioners, and not well executed, at a great expense. Another object attempted to be carried out by one of the bills was to effect an amendment of the Bankrupt-law, recom- mended by the Commissioners who bad inquired into the subject. The LORD CHANCELLOR had no objection to the course proposed by his noble and learned friend. He hoped very soon to lay on the table of the House the bills proposed to be introduced by the Government. The bills were read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

PRESBYTERIAN MARRIAGES. Lord ELIOT obtained leave to bring into the House of Commons, on Thursday, a " bill to legalize marn- ages which have been solemnized in Ireland by Presbyterian ministers, between Presbyterians and members of the Church of England." LEAVE OF ABSENCE was granted, on Tuesday night, to Mr. Ellice, M.P. for Coventry ; to Lord Seymour, M.P. for Tomes; to Major Vivian, M.P. for Bodmin ; and to Sir P. H. Fleetwood, M.P. for Pres- ton, until Easter. The motion "that Mr. Grainger (Member for Durham) have leave for five weeks to go the circuit," was put and negatived. IPSWICH ELECTION. Mr. RIGBY WASON moved, on Wednesday, that

Sir Thomas Cochrane should attend at the bar of the House, and be there examined, before his departure on foreign service, respecting cer- tain documents alleged to be in bis possession connected with the Ips- wich election, in order that his examination might be used before the Committee by whom that election was to be determined. The AT- TORNEY-GENERAL opposed the motion; observing that the examination, if taken, would not be receivable evidence before the Committee. After

a discussion, in which the motion was supported by Mr. O'Comixia., Mr. AGLIONBY, and Mr. Tworsas DUNCOMBE, and opposed by Sir Ro- BERT PEEL, it was withdrawn.

COPYRIGHT. Lord Mallow gave notice, on Thursday, that he would on that day week move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to copyright, similar to that introduced by Mr. Sergeant Tal- fourd.

LAND TENURE IN INDIA. Mr. O'CoNsErs. gave notice, that be would call the attention of the House to the subject of land tenure in India immediately after Easter.

BRITISH GUIANA. Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY, on Monday, postponed his motion, until he should be in possession of the resolutions passed at a recent meeting of West India proprietors.

DETENTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS. Mr. MURPHY moved, on Tues- day, for correspondence connected with the detention of certain British subjects in Central America, the late Mr. Bell of the Vixen being one of them ; his death having been caused by his sufferings. They had gone up the Bluefield river to explore a grant of land which they bad purchased. Lord STANLEY said that the statements hitherto furnished were entirely ex parte : the explanation of the Nicaragua Government had been demanded, but had not yet been received. Mr. MURPHY withdrew his motion.

RIOT IN JAMAICA. In reply to questions by Mr. O'CowNELL, on Thursday, Lord STANLEY stated, that there had been a riot at Kingston in Jamaica, on Christmas Day, in consequence of an attempt by the Mayor and other Magistrates to put down the usual rejoicings. The Police were resisted ; they fired on the rioters, and two persons were killed. Troops were then called out; they behaved with the greatest moderation, and the riot was suppressed without further loss of life. The Governor had ordered an investigation into the circumstances.